Sorry I just don't see how this is a hate group. And yes I've heard of them. They also protest changes from KJV to NIV versions based on the fact that they say the translations are not the same (even with different wording).

Meh, just looked them up online, and the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks hate groups, seems to list them as one.

Find a better source. Anyone who is remotely right-wing is considered a hate group by then.

Could you suggest a better source for tracking right wing hate groups?

oVo wrote:Doesn't that make them a form of Faux-Christian Hate Group?Since God is Love and all true Christians abide in tolerance andacts of kindness, these Thunder Bumpkins seem misguided and not exactly the stuff of Christianity.

Christian Hate Group is an oxymoron. If you aren't too attachedto the literature they're spreading, maybe you should share itwith local authorities.

In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I think you're getting your logic confused Sym... hate, being a base human emotion, is one that we are all subject to... and while it is true that if B is a subset of A, and one thing is true of all A, then it is true for all of B, it is not necessarily a defining characteristic of B. you could just as easily say that someone is an ice cream man, and thus he hates...

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

oVo wrote:Doesn't that make them a form of Faux-Christian Hate Group?Since God is Love and all true Christians abide in tolerance andacts of kindness, these Thunder Bumpkins seem misguided and not exactly the stuff of Christianity.

Christian Hate Group is an oxymoron. If you aren't too attachedto the literature they're spreading, maybe you should share itwith local authorities.

In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I think you're getting your logic confused Sym... hate, being a base human emotion, is one that we are all subject to... and while it is true that if B is a subset of A, and one thing is true of all A, then it is true for all of B, it is not necessarily a defining characteristic of B. you could just as easily say that someone is an ice cream man, and thus he hates...

Not really, that's the logic they employ. Are you aware of any person who claims that they became Christian because they hate homosexuals? I can point you to a group of people who hate homosexuals because they're Christian.

oVo wrote:Doesn't that make them a form of Faux-Christian Hate Group?Since God is Love and all true Christians abide in tolerance andacts of kindness, these Thunder Bumpkins seem misguided and not exactly the stuff of Christianity.

Christian Hate Group is an oxymoron. If you aren't too attachedto the literature they're spreading, maybe you should share itwith local authorities.

In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I think you're getting your logic confused Sym... hate, being a base human emotion, is one that we are all subject to... and while it is true that if B is a subset of A, and one thing is true of all A, then it is true for all of B, it is not necessarily a defining characteristic of B. you could just as easily say that someone is an ice cream man, and thus he hates...

Not really, that's the logic they employ. Are you aware of any person who claims that they became Christian because they hate homosexuals? I can point you to a group of people who hate homosexuals because they're Christian.

but you cannot say that of all Christians. again, if something is true of B, and B is a subset of A, it is NOT true to say that it is true of A. I can point to people who joined the military because they wanted to shoot people, but it neither makes it right, nor does it represent the military as a whole, nor even necessarily a large proportion of it.one of the biggest problem with Religion (and I use the term for ALL religions, not just Christianity) is that it tends to focus on emotion, one way or another... and hate is a very powerful emotion. thus there will be those who seek to justify their hate by using religion (and honestly, you could have easily used better, more powerful examples to make your point... the Crusades or the Inqusistion for example, though both would have had the same logical flaw as what you used)

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

oVo wrote:Doesn't that make them a form of Faux-Christian Hate Group?Since God is Love and all true Christians abide in tolerance andacts of kindness, these Thunder Bumpkins seem misguided and not exactly the stuff of Christianity.

Christian Hate Group is an oxymoron. If you aren't too attachedto the literature they're spreading, maybe you should share itwith local authorities.

In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I think you're getting your logic confused Sym... hate, being a base human emotion, is one that we are all subject to... and while it is true that if B is a subset of A, and one thing is true of all A, then it is true for all of B, it is not necessarily a defining characteristic of B. you could just as easily say that someone is an ice cream man, and thus he hates...

Not really, that's the logic they employ. Are you aware of any person who claims that they became Christian because they hate homosexuals? I can point you to a group of people who hate homosexuals because they're Christian.

but you cannot say that of all Christians. again, if something is true of B, and B is a subset of A, it is NOT true to say that it is true of A. I can point to people who joined the military because they wanted to shoot people, but it neither makes it right, nor does it represent the military as a whole, nor even necessarily a large proportion of it.one of the biggest problem with Religion (and I use the term for ALL religions, not just Christianity) is that it tends to focus on emotion, one way or another... and hate is a very powerful emotion. thus there will be those who seek to justify their hate by using religion (and honestly, you could have easily used better, more powerful examples to make your point... the Crusades or the Inqusistion for example, though both would have had the same logical flaw as what you used)

And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.

Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.

Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)

I have no idea what you mean by this, can you clarify? You've deleted my arguments leading up to this, so I do wonder whether you accepted them, or wish them forgotten, or whether there's something else here.

Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.

Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)

I have no idea what you mean by this, can you clarify? You've deleted my arguments leading up to this, so I do wonder whether you accepted them, or wish them forgotten, or whether there's something else here.

I'd rather you be up front about what you dislike.

I deleted the extra because it was... well, extra. If you want I can re-quote absolutely everything up to this point, but I was trying to make it easy to see what I was talking about... if you think I'd

Symmetry wrote:wish them forgotten

I probably wouldn't be quoting in the first place...

anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.

Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)

I have no idea what you mean by this, can you clarify? You've deleted my arguments leading up to this, so I do wonder whether you accepted them, or wish them forgotten, or whether there's something else here.

I'd rather you be up front about what you dislike.

I deleted the extra because it was... well, extra. If you want I can re-quote absolutely everything up to this point, but I was trying to make it easy to see what I was talking about... if you think I'd

Symmetry wrote:wish them forgotten

I probably wouldn't be quoting in the first place...

anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

Symmetry wrote:Weird stuff, a magazine for a group called the "Son's of Thunder" turned up on my doormat, apparently for a previous occupant. They kind of sound like a cult. I've dealt with a fair few weird Christian denominations in my time, and some of their "love" is pretty much indistinguishable from virulent hatred.

Any of you guys heard of them?

Is it a typo or is it "Son's of Thunder" and if it's the latter, is it possessive (i.e. the son owns of thunder) or is it "Son is of Thunder."

Very confusing.

I received a visit from Jehovah's witnesses who handed me two brochures. The first was about how I could live forever and the second was about how I should stop watching porn. I didn't read them so I'm not sure if they were mutually exclusive.

Symmetry wrote: And yet I feel that this argument applies more to your logic than mine. Clearly I'm talking about a Christian hate group, yet you seem to feel that this means that I think all Christians are members of a hate group, or that it's not possible to be a Christian hate group. I disagree with your logic on this Psychosis.

not at all... from my standpoint to be a member of the human race is to be a member of a hate group... from your definition anyway.

Symmetry wrote:In these guy's case, it's more of a tautology. They are Christian, thus they hate.

I read this to mean that they hate, therefore they are a hate group. my point was simply that all humans with the capacity for emotion hate (so I suppose I should exclude schizos from the hate group list?)

I have no idea what you mean by this, can you clarify? You've deleted my arguments leading up to this, so I do wonder whether you accepted them, or wish them forgotten, or whether there's something else here.

I'd rather you be up front about what you dislike.

I deleted the extra because it was... well, extra. If you want I can re-quote absolutely everything up to this point, but I was trying to make it easy to see what I was talking about... if you think I'd

Symmetry wrote:wish them forgotten

I probably wouldn't be quoting in the first place...

anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

fadedpsychosis wrote:anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

thegreekdog wrote:I received a visit from Jehovah's witnesses who handed me two brochures. The first was about how I could live forever and the second was about how I should stop watching porn. I didn't read them so I'm not sure if they were mutually exclusive.

Please report back in 1,000 years after abstaining from porn. For the good of mankind.

fadedpsychosis wrote:anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

my point is don't use bad logic(sorry, underlined was the best I could do)

If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.

you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care.your ideology is your own personal business.I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know.I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.

if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

fadedpsychosis wrote:anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

my point is don't use bad logic(sorry, underlined was the best I could do)

If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.

you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care.your ideology is your own personal business.I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know.I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.

if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.

So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?

fadedpsychosis wrote:anyway, my entire point is this: you use bad logic to reinforce your personal ideology which is what I personally hate most about politicians and religious fanatics the most... so I hate groups, does that make me a hate group?

You seem to hate my personal ideology. Can you outline it for me? If it is your entire point, that is.

my point is don't use bad logic(sorry, underlined was the best I could do)

If your logic led you to a hatred of my personal ideology, you could at least outline what you think that ideology is, however little you care for it.

you don't listen do you? let me say it again... I. Don't. Care.your ideology is your own personal business.I don't care about it, I don't know anything about it, I don't want to know.I don't hate your ideology either. what I hate is you using bad logic to push it.

if you want to learn the difference between good and bad logic go read a book or take a class, I haven't the patience or inclination to try to teach one who doesn't listen.

So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?

it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

Symmetry wrote:So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?

it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...

I don't get your take on this, nor why you would want to pray for that. Are you saying that you'd prefer these guys in office?

fadedpsychosis wrote:also, for more clarity, it was the word tautology that really set me off, followed by the line "They are Christian, thus they hate."calling a logical fallacy a tautology is rather offensive to me.

His point (or so I thought anyway) was that it seemed a tautology to THEM -i.e. THEY think that hate is a necessaary part of being a Christian. I don't believe Sym meant that he agrees.Or am I reading it wrong?

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

fadedpsychosis wrote:also, for more clarity, it was the word tautology that really set me off, followed by the line "They are Christian, thus they hate."calling a logical fallacy a tautology is rather offensive to me.

His point (or so I thought anyway) was that it seemed a tautology to THEM -i.e. THEY think that hate is a necessaary part of being a Christian. I don't believe Sym meant that he agrees.Or am I reading it wrong?

Symmetry wrote:Weird stuff, a magazine for a group called the "Son's of Thunder" turned up on my doormat, apparently for a previous occupant. They kind of sound like a cult. I've dealt with a fair few weird Christian denominations in my time, and some of their "love" is pretty much indistinguishable from virulent hatred.

Any of you guys heard of them?

and????? where is the hate??? I don't get it, unless it's just something you wanted to include in the title in order to deal with your own hate issue?

Symmetry wrote:So, what was the ideology that you hated? Or were you just hating the rhetoric I use?

it was the rhetoric, if you want to call it that... I call it bad logic. I don't care what you or anyone believes, but be honest and correct when you try to persuade others... if you read close what I said, it was the way politicians and religious fanatics use bad logic that I hate (I even bolded it in the quote above for you) as you have shown you're not a religious fanatic, I can only pray you have no political aspirations...

I don't get your take on this, nor why you would want to pray for that. Are you saying that you'd prefer these guys in office?